PHILADELPHIA – A Canadian arcade game manufacturer says that the owner of the Chuck E. Cheese restaurant chain is instead responsible for injuries suffered by a boy who was crushed by such a game machine at a Philadelphia restaurant.
Mary Kate Miller (individually and as parent/natural guardian of Aiden Miller, a minor) initially filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on Sept. 27 versus Adrenaline Amusements, Inc. of Terrebonne, Quebec, Canada.
(The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 20.)
“On or about June 5, 2019, at approximately 6:15 p.m., plaintiff Aiden Miller was lawfully at a Chuck E. Cheese restaurant located at 9 Snyder Avenue in Philadelphia, PA when, because of the unreasonably dangerous conditions of defendant’s arcade machine, plaintiff was crushed by a Spinner Frenzy video game machine, which was manufactured and distributed by defendant Adrenaline, after the machine fell on top of him, causing injuries to plaintiff. Plaintiff was trapped under the machine, which weighs approximately 390 pounds, for approximately 15 seconds until he was freed by a bystander,” the suit said.
“Solely as a result of the negligence and carelessness of defendant, the plaintiff, Aiden Miller, suffered a traumatic crush injury resulting in a minimally displaced right superior ramus fracture and non-displaced left posterior iliac wing fracture, leg pain, post-traumatic stress disorder and those other conditions that have been documented by his treating physicians and contained in those physicians’ records, all directly as a result of the aforesaid defective condition of the defendant’s Spinner Frenzy arcade machine.”
Mary Kate continued that as a result of the defendant’s negligence, Aiden may continue to suffer great pain and agony, mental anguish, loss of life’s pleasures, scarring, humiliation and has been or may be in the future hindered from attending to his daily duties, functions, and occupations to his great damage and loss.
“Solely as a result of the above, plaintiffs, Mary Kay Miller and Aiden Miller, have in the past, are presently and will in the future be obliged to receive and undergo medical attention and care, and to expend various sums of money, or to incur various expenses for his injuries, and they may be obligated to continue to expend such sums of money or incur such expenses for an indefinite time into the future, to their great detriment and loss,” per the suit.
“As a further result of this incident, and by reason of the injuries aforesaid, plaintiff, Aiden Miller, has or may be in the future continue to suffer great pain and agony, mental anguish, loss of life's pleasures, scarring, humiliation, and has been or may be in the future hindered from attending to his daily duties, functions, and occupations to his great damage and loss.”
Adrenaline Amusements, Inc. answered the complaint on Nov. 4, countering that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
“In resolving this motion, the Court needs to address only one straightforward issue: Whether plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to establish her claims against Adrenaline for strict products liability and negligence. The Court should find that plaintiff has not satisfied this pleading requirement. The complaint provides nothing but conclusory statements and accusations, unsubstantiated by facts. The allegations advanced in the complaint are not sufficient to establish the claim for product liability and negligence against Adrenaline,” the answer stated.
According to the company, the plaintiff did not allege sufficient facts to establish a product liability cause of action.
“Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient allegations to describe the nature of the alleged defect, if any, sufficient to maintain a product liability action against Adrenaline. Based on the bare facts included by plaintiff, we know that the Spinner Frenzy fell and landed on Aiden Miller. Nothing in plaintiff’s allegations suggests that the fall of the machine was due to a faulty manufacturing design or a manufacturing defect,” per the answer.
“Similarly, the complaint offers no allegations as to the existence or lack of warnings on the machine. Rather, the complaint conclusively asserts numerous allegations without providing sufficient detail to put the defendant on notice of the details of the claim against it. Presently, there are simply no facts stating a plausible cause of action against Adrenaline. This insufficient pleading cannot pass the muster of the Iqbal pleading requirement.”
Additionally, the defendant argued that the plaintiff did not show direct claims of negligence against it.
“Even if the Court finds there are sufficient allegations to establish a duty of care, there are no specific allegations other than plaintiff’s definitive conclusory statement that Adrenaline breached its duty of care. Plaintiff alleges that a Spinner Frenzy video game machine fell on Aiden Miller. Again, there are no facts that, if true, would show that the machine was defective or that AA was responsible for its fall. Thus, the complaint fails to plead even the minimal facts that would support a cause of action against Adrenaline,” the answer read.
UPDATE
On Dec. 10, Adrenaline filed a third-party complaint against CEC Entertainment, Inc., the parent company of the Chuck E. Cheese restaurant chain.
“While defendant/third-party plaintiff Adrenaline denies any liability to plaintiff, defendant/third-party plaintiff pleads in the alternative that to the extent it is found liable to plaintiff, that liability results from the following negligent acts or omissions by the CEC: Failed to appropriately install the Spinner Frenzy machine; Failed to lower the four leg levelers to the ground in order to stabilize the Spinner Frenzy Arcade Machine; Failed to appropriately maintain the Spinner Frenzy machine and other acts of negligence as disclosed in the course of future discovery,” the third-party action stated.
“As a direct and proximate result of one or more of the foregoing acts and/or omissions of the third-party defendant, CEC, plaintiffs claim to have sustained injuries. In the event of a judgment against defendant/third-party plaintiff Adrenaline, liability for which is expressly denied, the defendant/third-party plaintiff Adrenaline is entitled to contribution from third-party defendant in an amount commensurate with CEC’s respective degree of fault in causing plaintiff’s injury.”
For counts of negligence and product liability, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $50,000, plus interest and costs of suit.
The plaintiff is represented by Brad R. Krupnick of Fine & Staud, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Andrew J. Gallogly of Margolis Edelstein in Philadelphia, plus Kyle T. Geiger of Walker Wilcox Matousek, in Chicago, Ill.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-04603
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 210802277
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com